9 y/o Refuses Chemo. Court Forces him to.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed May 14, 2008 9:01 am

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health ... .chemo.ctv

Apparently a child with leukemia doesn't own his own body or his own life.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed May 14, 2008 9:15 am

OMG

I can't believe this is being forced

He's been thru this ordeal once before, he knows all thats involved and whether he can face this again..?

This is terrible for him - his family.

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed May 14, 2008 12:08 pm

rjwould;865411 wrote: Thats how you would prefer it, isn't it Red? After all, you're opposed to consenting adults having sexual intercourse which can result in the birth of a child when you disagree with the dynamics of the relationship, as in incest, correct? Do you not understand how the denial of certain rights encroaches on others rights when it comes to personal bodily decisions?

What are you rattling on about RJ? I would PREFER that the child make his own decisions since it is his suffering and ultimate death at hand. The parents have no right to force this kid to do chemo for a second time. And the court has even less of a right. And by the way, what you brought up regarding incest has no place in this thread. Let's try to stick to the topic at hand.

Jester;865665 wrote: Red is there a transcript of the video?

I'm apprently too slow to key it up on my internet comnnection.

It sounds sad just from whats been posted, but I agree with the parent in this case. An 11 year old child doesnt have the werewithal to understand the possible implications, they think too short sighted to see passed the posiblities of an outcome.

Under 18 (which is the typical legal cut off for such things) Then its up to the parent or guardian to act in th ebest interest of the child. Even if the chidl has a good head on his shoulders, he might not be thinking clearly in the midst of pain and his medical condition.

If I can find one Jester, I will put it here. I'll take a look and see what I can find.

I have to differ in that a 9 year old having experienced chemo and having been thrust into a situation which would throw most adults in same, has the faculties present to know if he wants to put himself through that again. I sure don't think it's the court's decision to make.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed May 14, 2008 12:28 pm

I can't access that video either Red.

Without knowing all the details my initial feeling is that it should be up to the boy.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed May 14, 2008 12:56 pm

I'm sorry Betty Boop, I will try and find another means for the video.

RJ, I can't help but feel the point is moot. After all, this is a place for discussion of anything and everything. If you feel it's tabloid then why do you participate in it? I don't understand that.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed May 14, 2008 1:37 pm

rjwould;865738 wrote: My point is to discuss it for what it is as tabloid gossip instead of trying to disguise it in something political or philosophical.

Again I ask what the issue is? What are you discussing? Whether or not you agree with the boy, his father, the agency which is involved or the government? Is that the question?

How about you choose what angle you want to talk about and everyone else can bring to the table whatever they would like to say about the topic? Is that fair enough? I don't see why you keep referring to it as tabloid or trying to direct my personal train of thought.

And yes, you answered your own question above.

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Wed May 14, 2008 1:50 pm

I am a bit confused about this as I couldnt acces the video...why did it go to court?

My opinion on this is if the parents want him to continue his chemo it should go ahead. Sure its an awful thing to go through but the end results are this child will live. I think a 9 year old hasnt the capacity to realise its a dark tunnel you go through but there is a light at the end. Its hard enough for an Adult but harder for a child. If it were my child I would be continuing the treatment.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 14, 2008 2:11 pm

kayleneaussie;865773 wrote: I am a bit confused about this as I couldnt acces the video...why did it go to court?

My opinion on this is if the parents want him to continue his chemo it should go ahead. Sure its an awful thing to go through but the end results are this child will live. I think a 9 year old hasnt the capacity to realise its a dark tunnel you go through but there is a light at the end. Its hard enough for an Adult but harder for a child. If it were my child I would be continuing the treatment.

And if it is the doctors / courts?

I cannot see the video either but previous cases have included ones brought by the medical staff against the wishes of both the patient and the family.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed May 14, 2008 2:22 pm

Ok here's one of the many writeups on this situation.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/425201

First they said he was nine and now he's established to be eleven. So...he got cancer at age seven, underwent his first round of chemo, went into remission for four years and now the cancer is back. Doctors say chemo will afford him a 50-50 chance. They also have said the boy suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome which gives him the mental capacity of an eight year old.

He does not want to do chemo again because it makes him sick.

There's another little video at the link I gave and I will also print the article as follows:

11-year-old at centre of chemo fight going home TheStar.com - News & Features - 11-year-old at centre of chemo fight going home

Parents agree to accept court-ordered treatment

May 14, 2008

The Hamilton Spectator

HAMILTON–A Hamilton boy undergoing court-ordered chemotherapy will be going home as early as this weekend.

At Family Court yesterday, the parents of the 11-year-old agreed to abide, for now, by a court order requiring that he receive treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

But they have permission to seek another medical opinion into his prognosis and will appear before a judge again in June.

The boy, who cannot be named because he is in the care of the Children's Aid Society, could finish his first round of chemotherapy this week and be home by Saturday or Sunday.

Before yesterday's hearing, the father said his son's spirit had been broken and his family was worried he'd get even weaker if he doesn't regain the will to fight his leukemia.

The man said his son is despondent, run down and wants to go home.

The boy was diagnosed with the disease when he was 7. After he suffered through chemotherapy, his cancer went into remission, but returned earlier this year.

When told last week that he needed more chemo, the boy refused and his father decided they would instead try alternative therapies.

But medical officials said the boy would live only six months without chemotherapy and insisted that he have another round of treatment to give him a 50-50 chance of complete remission.

The father lost custody to the Children's Aid Society after trying to fight for his son's wishes. But the boy has now given up fighting, his father said. He likened his son to a tortured prisoner willing to say anything to be released.

"All he ever says is, 'I just want to go home.' Now he's agreeing to everything and anything as long as you let him go to be free," he said.

The boy is surrounded in his hospital room by security guards and Children's Aid and youth-protection workers, the father said.

"He's a little prisoner. He can't leave his room or anything ...

"We told him, 'Don't worry buddy, please try to be healthy, relax, relax, relax, relax,' and he even said to me, 'I don't care. They can even kill me with their chemo and stuff I don't care, as long as I can come home and be home with you and mommy.' "

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Wed May 14, 2008 2:30 pm

Oh RG, that story is so sad, wtf??? why take him away from his parents when hes facing death and desperately wants to be with them. I dont know the wrongs and the rights of whether he should have the treatment but I do believe he should be at home with his family as he wants it so much. Its vital for recovery that patients remain strong to fight back....

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed May 14, 2008 2:49 pm

Red

I didn't have any trouble with the video.

rj

I'm not sure what your position is on this - could you explain why a court needs to be involved to enforce medical treatment. ??

How do think this is a tabloid story ?

Hell - lets bring every female into court make it mandatory for a mammogram.

I think a court stepping in - allows the legal system to step in on anyone - anytime and loss of freedoms.

I don't agree with this TABLOID.

Patsy

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 14, 2008 3:32 pm

Either the parents are the parents or the government is. Make a decision. Everyone in the family were in sync with the decision not to go down a road they had already tried before. There was no brainwashing or Holy Roller Bible thumping going on. There was a parent and child agreeing that the child had suffered enough.

If the parents are only parents so long as they toe the gov't line, I'd rather have the gov't drop the pretense and just take the damn kid and issue it to an appropriately trained child-rearing team.

cars · Post by **cars** » Wed May 14, 2008 4:52 pm

Wouldn't it be wonderful, if the govt forcing this additional round of treatments did in fact finally help the child and actually did put his illness in remission!!! :-2

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Wed May 14, 2008 5:34 pm

My buddy and his wife went through this same scenerio with their son. He was diagnosed with leukemia at 6 years old, went through numerous treatments, then went into remission. Then the cancer came back and more treatments followed. When their son reached 16, he told his parents he didn't want to go through anymore because now he was facing a bone marrow transplant and was tired of being poked, prodded and feeling sick all the time, just wanted everything to stop and told them it was time to just let him go now. The parents sided with their son and told the doctors that they refuse anymore treatment, that he had enough.

Well guess what....the doctors turned this family over to social services and they were threatened with their son being taken away from them and court orders if they did not follow through with more treatments. They had to hire an attorney to fight social services and the doctors. Before all was said and done, their son passed away. They not only lost their son, the incurred debt from hospitals, doctors and attorneys which they still are paying on.

Knowing what their son went through, I would have made the same decision that his parents made at that time, that enough was enough.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 14, 2008 5:44 pm

cars;865826 wrote: Wouldn't it be wonderful, if the govt forcing this additional round of treatments did in fact finally help the child and actually did put his illness in remission!!! :-2
Ends justify the means?

911 · Post by **911** » Wed May 14, 2008 9:50 pm

Did you all just skip over the part that said he had fetal alcohol syndrome?

So, these parents are the ones that should be making any decisions for their son? A mother who couldn't stop drinking long enough to have a child and now they want what's best for him? Give me a break!

They can even kill me with their chemo and stuff I don't care, as long as I can come home and be home with you and mommy. ???????

They can kill me, so long as I can go home and live with my mommy? Does that sound rational to you? Even an eight year old knows if he dies, he can't live at home.

Thank God someone stepped in to help him through this. He needs all the support he can get. A drunk mother and a mentally challenged boy cannot make a life threatening decision on their own. No point in commenting on the father.:-5

I wish that family all the support the government can give them.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 14, 2008 11:41 pm

911;865951 wrote: Did you all just skip over the part that said he had fetal alcohol syndrome?

So, these parents are the ones that should be making any decisions for their son? A mother who couldn't stop drinking long enough to have a child and now they want what's best for him? Give me a break!

???????

They can kill me, so long as I can go home and live with my mommy? Does that sound rational to you? Even an eight year old knows if he dies, he can't live at home.

Thank God someone stepped in to help him through this. He needs all the support he can get. A drunk mother and a mentally challenged boy cannot make a life threatening decision on their own. No point in commenting on the father.:-5

I wish that family all the support the government can give them.

That is not what he is saying. Let me paraphrase and see if the new reading appears to be more rational - I do not mind if I die (enough is enough I cannot take this treatment and the illness it is causing me to feel any longer) as long as I am able to be at home with my mommy until that happens (so that she can look after and comfort me whilst the cancer takes its course).

I have known adults make the same decision - the illness caused by the chemo made their quality of life so bad that any extra time it bought was not worth having. I can well understand a child coming to the same conclusion - consciously and in full knowledge of the implications of that decision.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu May 15, 2008 12:05 am

Thanks Bryn.

I think because it's a child in question, people have that kneejerk "children are precious" reaction. I'd say this boy knows what he wants. He'll die one way or another. If not from cancer then surely from a weakened heart caused by chemo. Watching my mom go through chemo plus radiation made me realize there are things worse than death. Even for children. I understand wanting to grasp at straws but I think this boy should be able to enjoy what time he has left, doing what little boys do, instead of being sick and in pain from chemo.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 15, 2008 12:08 am

RedGlitter;865973 wrote: Thanks Bryn.

I think because it's a child in question, people have that kneejerk "children are precious" reaction. I'd say this boy knows what he wants. He'll die one way or another. If not from cancer then surely from a weakened heart caused by chemo. Watching my mom go through chemo plus radiation made me realize there are things worse than death. Even for children. I understand wanting to grasp at straws but I think this boy should be able to enjoy what time he has left, doing what little boys do, instead of being sick and in pain from chemo.

Very much so - and I do think it's their decision to take at the end of the day, not the doctors or the courts.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:15 am

911;865951 wrote: Did you all just skip over the part that said he had fetal alcohol syndrome?

So, these parents are the ones that should be making any decisions for their son? A mother who couldn't stop drinking long enough to have a child and now they want what's best for him? Give me a break!

???????

They can kill me, so long as I can go home and live with my mommy? Does that sound rational to you? Even an eight year old knows if he dies, he can't live at home.

Thank God someone stepped in to help him through this. He needs all the support he can get. A drunk mother and a mentally challenged boy cannot make a life threatening decision on their own. No point in commenting on the father.:-5

I wish that family all the support the government can give them.
Fetal alcohol syndrome indicates that he was born of a drunk. It gives no indication what has happened in the next 11 years!

So every FAS kid should be taken from his parents? I mean after all, once a drunk always a drunk, right? :yh_frustr

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 3:21 am

Bryn Mawr;865961 wrote: That is not what he is saying. Let me paraphrase and see if the new reading appears to be more rational - I do not mind if I die (enough is enough I cannot take this treatment and the illness it is causing me to feel any longer) as long as I am able to be at home with my mommy until that happens (so that she can look after and comfort me whilst the cancer takes its course).
Not only that, there was the very real threat that if the parents continue fighting for their right to make decisions for their child, the fascists will take him away from his loving home and he would have to suffer, and possibly die, alone.

But hey, at least they weren't waterboarded.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:24 am

The thing that surprises me about this is that it has happened in the US with all emphasis on the freedom of the individual you have. In Britain it would be much less of a surprise (though it would cause just as much of a storm).

From what I've seen on the subject (not much) I'd side with the child on this one. My brother is a fairly high powered cancer doctor and reckons once chances of recovery are very low, chemo isn't worth it. He's constantly surprised at the number of people who go for chemo with only a one or two percent chance of recovery (which imo shows a lack of imagination on his part, but that's a different issue).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 15, 2008 5:38 am

It's happening in Canada, not the US, if I read it right.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:06 am

If the government steps in and demands treatment, shouldn't the government also pay for the treatment?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:07 am

Accountable;866097 wrote: It's happening in Canada, not the US, if I read it right.
Just read this post. If it is in Canada I reckon they are already paying for the treatment.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:32 am

Accountable;866044 wrote: Not only that, there was the very real threat that if the parents continue fighting for their right to make decisions for their child, the fascists will take him away from his loving home and he would have to suffer, and possibly die, alone.

But hey, at least they weren't waterboarded.

He already has been taken away from his loving home and family!

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:02 am

Accountable;866097 wrote: It's happening in Canada, not the US, if I read it right.

Oh, that explains it then.:wah:

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Thu May 15, 2008 11:52 am

This particular case is happening in Canada

I believe in a earlier post by Mustang pg 3 - this senario has happened in the US also.

As I stated earlier - freedoms are being ripped from individuals.

Put yourself in the situation - your the parent and they(courts) (Social Services)

rip your child from you and force medical treatments.

I'm sure this decision is based on the best interest of the child - (their opinion)

Yzgi had good point - who pays for this treatment ?

From what I understand from Canada's Health Care - there's a long waiting list for treatments - surgery - specialist of any kind.

Most Canadians resort to Medical Care in the US.

Patsy

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:55 pm

Bryn Mawr;865961 wrote: That is not what he is saying. Let me paraphrase and see if the new reading appears to be more rational - I do not mind if I die (enough is enough I cannot take this treatment and the illness it is causing me to feel any longer) as long as I am able to be at home with my mommy until that happens (so that she can look after and comfort me whilst the cancer takes its course).

I have known adults make the same decision - the illness caused by the chemo made their quality of life so bad that any extra time it bought was not worth having. I can well understand a child coming to the same conclusion - consciously and in full knowledge of the implications of that decision.

Bryn Mawr;865974 wrote: ...and I do think it's their decision to take at the end of the day, not the doctors or the courts.

So would you then allow the patient to instruct the physician to assist in "hastening" their death?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:56 pm

What has happened with this case does anyone know?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:44 pm

K.Snyder;1295541 wrote: So would you then allow the patient to instruct the physician to assist in "hastening" their death?

Without a doubt :-

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/309532-post2.html

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:47 pm

K.Snyder;1295543 wrote: What has happened with this case does anyone know?

I don't believe that they ever released the name of the child and I have seen no further reports of the case.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:58 pm

Bryn Mawr;1295597 wrote: Without a doubt :-

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/309532-post2.html

Bryn Mawr wrote: Secondly, in the case of pre-election, the patient must be examined at the time of that election to ensure that they are neither depressed nor coerced and that they are making their choice from an informed position. I believe this is what is stalling the process in wholeheartedly legalizing Physician-assisted death/suicide.

The perception of ones competence to make such a decision at the time...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:01 pm

K.Snyder;1295603 wrote: I believe this is what is stalling the process in wholeheartedly legalizing Physician-assisted death/suicide.

The perception of ones competence to make such a decision at the time...

The courts are quite happy to make competency decisions in other types of case, why make an issue of it here?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:13 pm

Bryn Mawr;1295607 wrote: The courts are quite happy to make competency decisions in other types of case, why make an issue of it here?

Probably because when those decisions are made in the court the occurence of such decisions are able to be changed by virtue of appeals.

If this is in reference to capitol punishemnt specifically then I couldn't think of a better parallel that proves capitol punishment is used purely in an attempt to reduce the desires of an individual to commit the same crimes...

My emphasis is that the perception of ones competence in determining such a decision could only be the reason why PAS, or PAD, is illegal anywhere in the world let alone by a majority.

Why else could Physician-assisted death/suicide be illegal?

Another route one could take is suggesting that religious denominations is largely to blame for not legalizing PAS, or PAD...

This is another belief of mine...

Anyone feel that Physician-assisted death/suicide is morally wrong? I'm interested in the arguments of those that agree with this statement.